PDA

View Full Version : Pete Sampras '97 vs ATP Top Five '07


War, Safin!
05-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Given that Pete Sampras will be facing Roger Federer over three exhibition matches this year and it's constantly bought up who would win at their repsective peaks, how do people feel Sampras would fare against guys like Nadal, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Djokovic, etc...on all surfaces: hard, clay, grass, carpet.

Thoughts, predictions?

chiru
05-29-2007, 11:40 AM
I mean, clearly, he'd not fare very well against nadal on grass, and i think nadal might get a few on him on hard. by and large though, he should own a fairly solid winning record against the other guys on any surface. I mean, Davy, Gonzo and Djoko might have a winning record against him on clay, but its not inconceivable that pete would beat them on clay as well at least a few times. but cerainly on any other surface, you gotta like pete's chances. Oh and he'd school roddick, even on clay.

LttlElvis
05-29-2007, 11:54 AM
I mean, clearly, he'd not fare very well against nadal on grass.

I hope you mean: he'd not fare very well against nadal on clay.

I agree with everything else chiru says.

pj80
05-29-2007, 04:06 PM
even i would school roddick on clay

iamke55
05-29-2007, 04:26 PM
0-10 vs everyone on every surface that still exists in this year. If the level of play doesn't improve over time, we'd still be using the same technique as when the sport was invented.

War, Safin!
05-30-2007, 12:29 AM
I think, bar Nadal, given the inconsistency of the guys in the Top5, I'd pick Sampras to beat them all - handily, on all surfaces....

Phil
05-30-2007, 12:57 AM
Other then Federer, there's no one playing today who is even REMOTELY CLOSE to Pete's caliber.

He'd run through the field like a samurai sword cutting through hot butter. And then he'd make Roger his biyatch. He'd beat Roger 7 of 10 times. Roger is GREAT-even beyond great, but he's never faced anything like the Sampras Assault. I've said this before...Present Day Roger vs. Pete in his prime = Roger as Pete's biyat...

federerfanatic
05-30-2007, 01:55 AM
Nadal would humiliate Sampras on clay, but Pete would dominate Nadal on every other surface. I dont think Nadal would give Pete as much trouble as he does Roger on hard courts in all honesty. Well rebound ace possibly, that is it.

I think Hewitt of 2001-2005 would give Pete more trouble then Roddick, Davydenko, and the other top players, since he loves a target and returns and passes exceptionaly well vs a target. Davydenko is like a Kafelnikov-clone, with less natural talent but superior mental toughness, and Kafelnikov was owned by Pete.

War, Safin!
05-30-2007, 04:59 AM
Nadal would humiliate Sampras on clay, but Pete would dominate Nadal on every other surface. I dont think Nadal would give Pete as much trouble as he does Roger on hard courts in all honesty. Well rebound ace possibly, that is it.

I think Hewitt of 2001-2005 would give Pete more trouble then Roddick, Davydenko, and the other top players, since he loves a target and returns and passes exceptionaly well vs a target. Davydenko is like a Kafelnikov-clone, with less natural talent but superior mental toughness, and Kafelnikov was owned by Pete.
Nadal: I think Nadal's return game might get him a set, tops, on Rebound Ace, but grass and Deco-Turf, no way.

Hewitt: good point. Hewitt seemed to be able to read Sampras in his final years, so a prime v prime is interesting.

Roddick / Ljubicic / Robredo / Haas: no chance.

What about Berdych, Gasquet, Murray, Nalbandian?

origmarm
05-30-2007, 05:04 AM
I reckon Nadal's return game would get him a set or perhaps two on clay. It'll be like watching Agassi play Sampras in that respect (though not quite the same level on those returns :))

For Roddick he would get a spanking, no backhand and his forehand is on the blink recently

Davydenko, Gonzalez, Djokovic haven't watched them play enough

Federer on the other hand has probably got the best shot. Thats a really tough one to call. The two of them on clay would be really interesting

Hewitt is an out of the blue one...thinking about it I quite like his chances though

z-money
05-30-2007, 05:37 AM
He has already whipped roddick several times. but nadal and roger are the only ones who might consistantly beat him (win @ least 40% of there matchups). everyone else might win occasionally, but prime pete = Grand slam champ. Agassi pushed fed, so pete would cause him alot of trouble.

shakes1975
05-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Other then Federer, there's no one playing today who is even REMOTELY CLOSE to Pete's caliber.

He'd run through the field like a samurai sword cutting through hot butter. And then he'd make Roger his biyatch. He'd beat Roger 7 of 10 times. Roger is GREAT-even beyond great, but he's never faced anything like the Sampras Assault. I've said this before...Present Day Roger vs. Pete in his prime = Roger as Pete's biyat...

nice opinion, but you would lose a lot of money if you would place your bets. suffice to say that sampras has not faced anybody like fed either.

without going into the debate about who is the better player, fed beats sampras more often than not mainly bcos he matches up well with sampras.

peak fed vs. peak sampras:

6/10 on grass
7/10 on Decoturf
8/10 on rebound ace
10/10 on clay.

federerfanatic
05-30-2007, 12:47 PM
If I had to guess Roger vs Pete in their primes:

rebound ace: Roger wins 7 out of 10
clay: Roger wins 10 out of 10
grass: Pete wins 8 out of 10
decoturf: Pete wins 6 out of 10
carpet: Pete wins 8 out of 10

I think Roger is superior to Pete in every area except the serve and volley. I think he is superior off both forehand and backhand, far superior off the return of serve, superior as an overall mover, superior in fitness, and superior in strategy. However the serve is the most important part of the game and Pete's serve-volley game was so opressing.

Then again I think Roger is much better equiped to face Pete then Andre was, and even Andre won 14 out of 34 so who knows.

Phil
05-30-2007, 05:16 PM
nice opinion, but you would lose a lot of money if you would place your bets. suffice to say that sampras has not faced anybody like fed either.

without going into the debate about who is the better player, fed beats sampras more often than not mainly bcos he matches up well with sampras.

peak fed vs. peak sampras:

6/10 on grass
7/10 on Decoturf
8/10 on rebound ace
10/10 on clay.

Wishful thinking. Most of you guys coming up with these absurd numbers have never actually seen Sampras PLAY. Oh, except for a clip or two on YouTube. He wouldn't lose 10/10 to ANYONE on ANY surface...he wouldn't ALLOW that to happen. He wouldn't ALLOW Nadal to make him his prison beeyotch on clay, as Federer has...despite the fact that clay was Sampras' weakest surface.

There's a mental dimension here that you guys just don't seem to get. It's the most important element that distinguishes top-10 players from the rest of the pack, and the most important element in Pete's game...and why he'd beat Federer 7 or 8 of 10 times OVERALL, regardless of surface.

tricky
05-30-2007, 05:28 PM
He wouldn't ALLOW Nadal to make him his prison beeyotch on clay, as Federer has...despite the fact that clay was Sampras' weakest surface.

I would be truly surprised if Sampras wins even one match against Nadal on clay against 10 matches. Nadal's FH bounce would be disastrous for Sampras's BH on clay. Regardless of the competition of clay court, his brutal record speaks for itself.

It's the most important element that distinguishes top-10 players from the rest of the pack, and the most important element in Pete's game..

Federer and Sampras approach mental game differently, though. Sampras was a true matador; he would go down on his terms by playing his game. Federer is really about reading his opponent and taking away his best weapons.

Phil
05-30-2007, 05:51 PM
I would be truly surprised if Sampras wins even one match against Nadal on clay against 10 matches. Nadal's FH bounce would be disastrous for Sampras's BH on clay. Regardless of the competition of clay court, his brutal record speaks for itself.

It's not about "high bounces", etc. It's about what is in the mind. Roger can get past the high bounce or whatever reason you want to give for his losing to Nadal on a constant basis...he has that ability, but Nadal got into head. Sampras would beat Nadal on clay...not often, but he would have done it, just as he beat the best clay courters of his day, on clay: Muster and Bruguerra. He didn't allow himself to be owned like that. It's all in the mind. And he would have NEVER lost to Nadal on any other surface. Certainly not like Roger lost at Dubai last year...with the match his to win.

federerfanatic
05-30-2007, 05:58 PM
I unfortunately have to agree with Phil on one thing. Nadal does get into Federer's head quite a bit so far. Roger is getting over that a bit more of late and now is starting to play better vs Nadal in general. However he has had a mental block with Nadal for quite awhile. 3 of their matches last year really show this. The matches in Dubai and Rome Roger definitely outplayed Rafa and should have won both matches hands down but lost them somehow anyway. The match at Wimbledon, although Roger won, Nadal should not even belong on the same court as him on grass and it was one of the most tedious passive matches I have ever seen Roger play on grass vs anyone, and he basically allowed a guy playing clay court tennis to take him to a fairly tough 4 setter.

Since Roger has beaten Nadal once on clay though one cant say he never beats Nadal on clay anymore however.

tricky
05-30-2007, 06:28 PM
He didn't allow himself to be owned like that. It's all in the mind.

I definitely agree with that. Federer can now put losses in perspective (that ATP point margin sure brings peace of mind), but Sampras -- brutually competitive as he is -- has maybe the shortest memory in tennis. Which is what I love about Sampras -- he was about sharpening his weapons and then imposing his will on you oncourt. His game, his athleticism, his terms. Even if he gets blown out, it's still on his terms. A total baller mentality applied to tennis.

War, Safin!
05-31-2007, 07:11 AM
The match at Wimbledon, although Roger won, Nadal should not even belong on the same court as him on grass and it was one of the most tedious passive matches I have ever seen Roger play on grass vs anyone, and he basically allowed a guy playing clay court tennis to take him to a fairly tough 4 setter.

Agreed. Can you imagine what Sampras would've done in that situation?
It'd be over in 75 minutes.

dima
05-31-2007, 07:24 AM
Haha, Phil needs to get off Sampras' dick, it's obvious he is a blind Sampras fanboy. Federer is the better player, when will you old farts realize it?


I forgot to add, Bruguera beat Sampras on a american Hard court in 1997 LOL a clay court specialist who is much worse than Nadal on Hard courts HAHAHAHA

pj80
05-31-2007, 07:46 AM
Haha, Phil needs to get off Sampras' dick, it's obvious he is a blind Sampras fanboy. Federer is the better player, when will you old farts realize it?


I forgot to add, Bruguera beat Sampras on a american Hard court in 1997 LOL a clay court specialist who is much worse than Nadal on Hard courts HAHAHAHA

what about canas a lucky loser clay court specialist beating federer twice in a row on hard court. HAHAHAHAHA

TheNatural
05-31-2007, 08:53 AM
I think Present sampras would beat a lot of the top 10 in best of 3 sets. Peak Sampras and Peak Rafter would win a lot of matches versus Federer. Rafter had fed 3-0 before Fed was number 1, and someone like Bazuki who's ranked 200 or something, troubled Fed a lot because he plays an attacking net game, he only barely lost a 3rd set tie break when he last played Federer, and gave him lots of headaches the other time they played. So you have to imagine that Rafter and Sampras would be even more difficult.

drakulie
05-31-2007, 09:00 AM
how do people feel Sampras would fare against guys like Nadal, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Djokovic, etc...on all surfaces: hard, clay, grass, carpet.

Other than Nadal on clay, Pete would most likely have a winning record against all of them on grass and hard, and would most likely play them all at least equally on the other surfaces.

Nadal would own Pete on clay. Pete would beat Nadal on grass, but given the slower grass today, it wouldn't be as lopsided a victory as Nadal over Pete on clay.

As for Fed vs. Pete.

grass = equal

clay = fed would destroy Pete.

hard = fed would have the edge

carpet = fed would have the edge

logansc
05-31-2007, 09:17 AM
Have to agree with Phil, Sampras was one of the best competitors ever in any sport, and people forget his athleticsm and ability to raise his game when needed. Not saying he would crush Fed and all that other nonsense, but let's just say if we had Pete around today at his peak, tennis would be a lot more interesting and Fed would not be AS dominant or be winning 3/4 majors every year.

tHotGates
05-31-2007, 10:07 AM
Against Nadal, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, & Djokovic Pete would enjoy a comfortable winning record on all surfaces (this includes the current version of slower grass & hard courts) with the notable exception of clay. No doubt Pete would struggle on clay but if hindsight is anything (assuming he has access to the newer racquets, I will acede to Pete's comments about use of a larger racquet & improved clay court performance) then Pete's performance on clay might surprise a few a folks. After all, Pete has beaten on clay YK , Courier, Muster, Agassi, & Bruguera. True, he has lost to these players but the point being he can win against very good clay court players. A change in attitude or coaching might have helped Pete's clay court performance.

As far as Fed v Pete ....

Grass - slight edge to Pete
Hard - toss up
Clay - advantage Fed
Carpet - toss up
Ace Rebound - slight edge Fed

I think weather would play a factor for Pete v Fed more so than for some of the other players mentioned where Pete just outclasses them. In the case of Pete v Fed, the gap is narrow. In the latter, I would cite Ace Rebound/ AO where conditions can be brutally hot. Pete suffered from the genetic disorder of Thalassemia & in hotter conditions Fed gets the edge but if the conditions are moderate then I gotta move my position to toss up.